• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Farm To Msu Slides For Portland

Farm To Msu Slides For Portland






Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



0 Embeds 0

No embeds



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Farm To Msu Slides For Portland Farm To Msu Slides For Portland Presentation Transcript

    • Farm-to-MSU: Institutional Procurement of Local, Sustainably Grown Products
        • David Conner
        • Colleen Matts
        • Getachew Abatekassa
        • Michigan State University (MSU)
    • Overview
      • Introduction: motivation for study
      • Previous research
      • Research objectives
      • Methods and approach
      • Results
      • Recent progress
    • Introduction: motivations
      • Support MSU’s desired Farm-to-MSU program
      • Potential benefits:
        • Support local farmers, economy, community, landscape
        • Improved freshness, nutrition
      • Part of educational mission
      • Pressure from commodity groups, agricultural community
    • Previous research: Farm to Institution
      • Numerous common themes across studies:
      • Benefits: fresh, local, flexibility, transport costs
      • Barriers:
        • “ Logistics”: ordering, delivery, billing
        • “ Risk management”: timely delivery , adequate volumes , quality, safety, specification
        • Reliance on pre-processed produce (diced, chopped, etc.)
        • Apathy of end consumers (students)
      • *Vogt and Kaiser, Agriculture and Human Values, 2008
    • Best Practices: Other Universities’ Experiences
      • Set goals within sustainability initiatives
      • Have a champion
      • Start slow and steady, document
      • Build support from wider university
    • Objectives of Farm to MSU study
      • Examine current food purchase practices and experiences
      • Explore opportunities/barriers for buying Michigan
      • Propose applicable approaches and models
    • Methods
      • Interviews (N=15)
        • Within MSU structure
        • Supply chain actors (snowball sampling)
      • Topics
        • MSU organizational structure and procedures
        • Supply chain actors’ experiences and practices
        • Experiences/perceptions buying Michigan products
    • Organizational Structure University Food and Dining Services (UFDS) Farmer/Producer (Contract) Manufacturer Packer/shipper ( Contract) Distributor U. Housing Dining Kellogg Hotel & Conf. Center MSU Concessions Sparty’s Cafés MSU Bakers MSU Union Ingredient supplier Food Stores
    • MSU procurement procedures
      • Food Stores= self-managed central conduit:
      • Chooses vendors
      • Purchases from manufacturers and distributors
      • Negotiates contracts, prices (bids)
      • Authorizes payment
      • Ensures compliance with rules, reg’s, standards
      • Stores inventory or coordinates deliver
      • Very centralized: Pros and Cons
    • MSU procurement procedures
      • Ranked priorities
        • Right quantity, type and quality of products at right price
        • Continuity of supply
        • Suitability of product/service ordering, transportation and logistics system
        • Requirements of Food Stores’ on-campus customers
      • Prefers one-stop shopping, experienced vendors
    • Supply chain actors
      • Recurring themes :
      • Food quality and safety
      • Reliability and quantity of supply
      • Logistics (efficiency, transportation and transaction costs)
      • Pricing
      • Relationships among agents
    • Experiences with Michigan products
      • Importance of supporting Michigan businesses
      • Michigan is “local” source for many products (fresh produce) in summer/fall but not always identified
      • Barriers: season, climate, quality perceptions
    • Discussion
      • Opportunities
      • Shared commitment to local
      • MSU account size and prestige
      • Learning from current efforts
      • Part of local food movement
      • Obstacles
      • Asynchrony of supply and demand
      • Use of processed produce: waste, yield uncertainty, labor costs and safety issues
        • Processors reluctant to run batches –may be changing
      • Advantages of current system
      • High demand on farmers: costs of insurance, handling, traceability
      • http://www.mottgroup.msu.edu/Portals/0/downloads/FarmToMSU%20final%20report.pdf
    • Recent Progress: Partnerships
      • “ 80 mile diet” dinner in 2008 (MSU class)
      • Michigan-only distributor: dried fruit, fresh produce (roots and greens)
      • MSU Student Organic Farm supplying salad greens
    • Progress: Procurement
        • Romaine
          • Not chopped
          • Only one delivery/week
          • Mixed reaction
        • Peppers, cucumbers from Canada
        • All Michigan non-GMO soy fryer shortening
        • Local beef, lamb
        • Michigan organic turkey
        • Spec’s for regional canned tomato, frozen vegetables, meats
    • Progress..Vendor changes
        • Sysco Grand Rapids
          • MOU with growers, value chain partnerships
          • Investment: satellite distribution centers
          • Assistance with packaging, food safety certification
          • Increased purchases from hoop house farms
          • Requiring batch processing
    • Recent Progress…MSU changes
      • New VP for Housing/Dining
      • Changes in Dining Services
        • Proposed name: “Culinary services”
          • made to order
          • fewer items (less waste, higher quality)
        • Proposed position: Sustainability-food safety officer
      • Student changes
        • Know where food comes from
        • “ Culinary” hall:
          • Built for 3,500 meals/day
          • Do 6,200 !
    • Summary Thoughts
      • Still business as usual, but…
      • Local food movement
      • Demand pull on vendors
      • Still not enough farm capacity (especially hoop houses!)
      • Slow steady institutional change
      • Influence on NACUFS?
      • Stay Tuned!
    • Thank You!
      • David Conner and Colleen Matts, C.S. Mott Group for Sustainable Food Systems at MSU
      • [email_address]
      • [email_address]
      • http://mottgroup.msu.edu
      • Getachew Abate, MSU Product Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources
      • [email_address]
      • http://www.productcenter.msu.edu/